Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth: 2025

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. waggers (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth: 2025[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:V. The only sources are a press release on a disreputable site with links to malware, a claimed award which isn't supported by the reference, a trivial review on an otherwise non-notable site (see the discussion regarding OMGN here), and the company's own site. Nothing I could find meets WikiProject Video games' list of recommended sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hmm, indeed hard to find any single good sources, there are tens of thousands of fan sites, strategy guides, reviews, urban dictionary references and what not, but this kind of game didn't attract a lot of "notable media" attention unfortunately so few if any of those are independently notable. I think it does deserve an entry for being one of the first and longest running (1996 - 2009) browser based strategy games, but then again the only source I could find to back that up off-hand is is a blog entry on a site that trigger the spam filter (ezinearticles.com/?History-of-Web-Browser-Games&id=2670093). The site hosting the game (though not the game itself specifically) did indeed win a Webby in the Game category in 2002 and 2003 (in article reference is wrong for some reason, I'll fix that), listed as "Swirve" here and here. I think those Webby's alone should be enough to pass WP:WEB even if they are not explicitly attributed to this game alone. --Sherool (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the sentence per WP:TOPIC, because it's more appropriate in an article on Swirve than on a game hosted on their website. As far as notability goes, it doesn't work that way. Being created by a notable company/organization/person can point in the direction of notability, but the article must still be supported by quality references. Albums by otherwise notable bands are regularly deleted due to lack of references, for example. Hell, you won't even find an article on Blizzard's next MMO because, despite the amount of buzz and fan speculation, there are simply no reliable sources to base the article on. There will probably be reliable sources in the future (and there may be for this game as well), but the sources have to come first. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to address WP:WEB. Yes, the site itself won an award, but the specific content isn't mentioned anywhere in the award. It's like justifying us having an article on every game found on AOL Games despite that fact that they're otherwise non-notable and aren't supported by references. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't rely compare the site to AOL games, it only hosted two games at the time, this an Utopia. There is nothing rely worthwhile to write about Swirve except those two games. I suppose merging Earth: 2025, Swirve.com and Utopia (online game) into one combined article could work as a compromise (better than an outright delete anyway) if others agree with you that the games are not independently notable (even though they where the only content on a site you agree is notable), though my personal preference would be to leave things as they are. --Sherool (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find anything in reliable sources that could establish notability. Keep in mind that just because the parent may be notable doesn't mean that its children are (in general). –MuZemike 00:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourced from blogs and forums, the subject does not appear to be verifiable through reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk)
Delete - no significant, reliable coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.